The YouTube/CNN Debate

So cool, huh?

I caught the tale end of it when it was aired live the other night, and saw more of it in a rebroadcast when I was fixing hotdogs for my dad when I got home from softball.

Overall, I thought it presented a nice way for folks who aren't political junkies like me to find something in political discourse that they can latch onto, a sort of "When Worlds Collide" aspect. It rocked to see the Democratic candidates respond to more off beat questions from folks like the two guys from Murphreesboro, Tennessee, who wondered if Al Gore jumped in the race if it would hurt anybody's feelings.

I found myself thinking about vice-presidential line ups. Although it's very early in the race, and anything could potentially happen, if either Hillary or Obama get the nomination, might they draw from one of the also rans as a running mate? This is always an interesting dance, an attempt to corral the base--and the fundraising potential--of someone that the frontrunner mostly agrees with. For example, I found the idea of Vice President Kucinich to be pretty delightful. (My sister-in-law loves Kucinich because he's a fellow vegan. I wonder if there would be vegan options at State Dinners in an Obama-Kucinich White House?)

Hillary is generally regarded as "the winner," and her performance was pretty much flawless, not only with respect to what she said, but how she said it. But to be sure, there were no flies on Obama, and my guy Bill Richardson certainly performed well, too. But, aside from a few instances of not answering the question, particularly with respect to the two gay marriage questions, the Democratic roster is pretty impressive.

Did anyone else take note of the the camera-work? Some of those close-ups were pretty extreme. Pretty unusual for a debate. Seeing it on a large screen must have been like going to a Chuck Close opening. For instance, one thing that I now know that I didn't know before: John Edwards has the most beautiful blue eyes.